Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hannity & Colmes 17 May 2002 "Mansoor Ijaz explains!
FNC | 17 May 2002 | Johnpauljones

Posted on 05/17/2002 6:07:58 PM PDT by JohnPaulJones

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last
To: ohioWfan
Hannity needs to AQUIRE some listening skills. He's too full of himself sometimes!
61 posted on 05/17/2002 11:33:32 PM PDT by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Well put - "Democrats' version of a suicide bombing".

It is a desperate move, not without risk or reward. The risk is fallout from challenging the character and leadership of a popular president.
The reward is damaging Bush in regard to his post-9/11 image. The Dems know that a lot of the support for Bush emanates from public approval of his handling of the terrorist attacks. If they can get people to think negatively of Bush when they think of 9/11, no matter how erroneous the charge, the Dems will have at last found a significant chink in Bush's armor.

Risky, desperate, vicious, hypocritical - Yes. But the Democrats are neither stupid nor disorganized. This entire scheme was thought out and planned well in advance - from the timing of the "leaks"; to the pious statements of Gephardt, Daschle, and Hillary; to the outraged cries of WTC widows; to the exhaustive coverage by the press.

The Democrats play dirty and they play to win. No Bush "new tone" - with its policy compromises and its fawning public displays of bipartisanship - is going to cause them to silently shrink away in submission.

But will it work? Will the public be permanently swayed by the implication that Bush fiddled while New York burned? Will the Dems succeed in dragging out Congressional investigations to keep this issue alive throughout the current election cycle?

Too soon to tell, but the early returns from polls and word-on-the-street eavesdropping seem to hint that this latest Democrat attack may fall short of the mark and fade away from mainstream public consciousness, perhaps to be relegated to history's heap of unproven conspiracies and foiled character assassinations.
62 posted on 05/18/2002 12:03:29 AM PDT by over3Owithabrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: over3Owithabrain
Locator bump-
63 posted on 05/18/2002 1:12:56 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: cartoonistx
Good point. Acquire listening skills, and then develop them.
64 posted on 05/18/2002 4:56:05 AM PDT by ohioWfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Re: Your posts #44 & #45. Very well said. Those posts encapsulate the Democrats "Sum of all fears". They lay bare the disgusting failure to attack terrorism that is the ROOT CAUSE of the events of 9/11.
65 posted on 05/18/2002 6:48:39 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

thanks for the will be interesting to see if the "McKinney" Democrats will
have to eat some crow on this non-issue.
66 posted on 05/18/2002 7:50:41 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?
Conservatives have's my party by default..the Pubbies I worry about.
67 posted on 05/18/2002 9:36:50 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

.."It was clear to me in my dealings with the CLINTON White House that the CLINTON Administration NEVER intended to do anything about Terrorism in the 1990's" =

We musn't forget that the Clinton administration did do some very superficial and revealing things...they wrote up a detailed report on global terrorism, including the names, dirty deeds and potential weapons caches as well as locations of terrorist groups on a fancy webpage and gave lectures at Universities and think we can all be sure that the Clinton administration knew that the terrorist threat for the US was widespread and serious, which damns them even more for their lack of action.

Then there is this Clinton defining moment:
Clinton's parting gift to Bush? Poking the Taliban hornet's nest...and running:

Today, the United Nations removed all its remaining relief workers from the country, fearing a backlash from the Taliban, who will be almost completely isolated diplomatically when the resolution takes effect in 30 days, a grace period during which the Taliban could avoid sanctions by meeting the Council's demands. , Dec. 20th...2000.
Why did Clinton wait until Dec. 19th, 2000 to push the UN for tougher sanctions against the Taliban? The specific threat was for the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden, or else. Now, Clinton knew this would anger not only the Taliban, but their terrorist pals across the world. The UN understood the danger...they pulled their own people out the same day, Dec. 20th, the new threat was issued. The electoral college voted for President Bush on Dec. 18th. On Dec. 19th, Clinton went to the UN to push for tougher sanctions, on Dec. 20th the UN reluctantly issued the go into effect in 30 days.. Jan. 20th, 2001, President Bush's inaugeration day.

What kind of a man, knowing the international threats, knowing the pressures of the Presidency would choose personal vengence over national security?

68 posted on 05/18/2002 9:53:10 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
The fact that these people never even made sure that there weren't any skeletons in their own closets before pointing the finger at Bush shows them to be the shallow and ignorant liars that they are.

They are just so used to people "looking the other way" that it still hasn't dawned on them that their game is up. They're full of deception and more and more people realize it every day. They can't hide their lyin' least for the moment.

69 posted on 05/18/2002 9:59:55 AM PDT by avenir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
...What kind of man would chose...


...A denied 3rd Term-lusting President CLINTON...

...THAT's who...!!!

70 posted on 05/18/2002 10:56:44 AM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
...And what kind of woman would chose...


...A 1st Term-Lusting HILLARY CLINTON...

...THAT's who...!!!!!!!

71 posted on 05/18/2002 11:00:25 AM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny)
Because Hannity thinks the show is all about HIM!
72 posted on 05/18/2002 2:13:31 PM PDT by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
I would have like to have seen that, too! Good to see you Mudboy, as always!
73 posted on 05/18/2002 6:34:25 PM PDT by AuntB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
"Good to see you Mudboy..."

Good to see you, too, AuntB, haven't seen ya aroun' these parts much lately...then again, I ain't been FReepin' quite as much as before either. Have ya seen GrandmaC lately? And how are we doing with the Klamath Basin these days?


74 posted on 05/19/2002 2:28:22 PM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

Comment #75 Removed by Moderator

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson